Fed’s $8.5 Billion Payout Leaves Many Unanswered Questions

The Federal Reserve caused a bit of a stir last week with the announcement that ten of the US’s biggest mortgage loan services are to payout a total $8.5billion in compensation and ‘assistance’ to around 3.8 million borrowers whose homes were foreclosed upon between 2009 and 2010. The payout comes as a result of those lenders admitting to certain ‘deficient practices’ regarding their handling of the loans and the way in which they processed the foreclosures.

Some form of compensation for the homeowners was expected, but what surprised many was the speed at which the Fed came to this decision – previously, officials were going through complaints on a case-by-case basis, a lengthy and time consuming process that would have taken many months to complete. While the agreement announced last week probably means that lenders get away with paying less, the Fed says that the advantage is that borrowers will receive the financial assistance they need “in a more timely manner”.

As part of the agreement, lenders will hand out more than $3.3 billion in cash to those homeowners that were wrongly foreclosed upon, with another $5.2 billion set aside for other forms of assistance, such as forgiveness of deficiency judgments and loan modifications. The amount of compensation due to each former homeowner will vary depending on their individual circumstances, but officials said that payouts will range from a few hundred dollars to more than $100,000 in some cases.

Opening a Can of Worms

Several observers have said that with any luck the payout will have brought an end to this long running issue, but these people are seriously mistaken. In all likelihood, all the lenders have achieved is to give themselves an even bigger headache, for the small matter of dividing up the payouts so that everyone entitled to compensation receives a fair amount will be no walk in the park.

One of the most controversial issues, and something that is absolutely likely to cause arguments later on down the line, is that dozens of affected homeowners that may or may not receive adequate compensation from the deal, have been denied the right to an “independent foreclosure review”, as is stated in the FAQ section of the review.

The problem here is that in order for such a review to be independent, both the lenders and the federal regulators representing the homeowners should have been given the chance to nominate a neutral third party to carry out this review – sadly, it seems that the lenders themselves actually chose these reviewers.

“Federal regulators designed the program to work like this: Each of the banks would hire an ‘independent consultant’ (approved by the regulator) to conduct reviews of the bank’s foreclosure cases. The bank was supposed to foot the bill, but the consultant, not the bank, was supposed to decide which of the bank’s customers deserved compensation and how much.”

Clearly then, the consultants chosen to do the job cannot be seen as ‘impartial’ reviewers, and so their fairness in deciding who is entitled to how much compensation will inevitably come into question. In fact, the awards will be paid out according to the stipulations of the agreement, which would appear to be arbitrary at best, and will likely be anything but fair. For an example of this ‘arbitrariness’, consider the actual rules for eligibility, which state that only those foreclosed upon between 2009 and 2010 can be considered for compensation – irrespective of the fact that millions were foreclosed upon before 2009.

Like It or Lump It

Perhaps even worse than this arbitrary decision making is the fact that homeowners will have no rights to appeal the independent review process. The FAQ page states:

“The decision of the review is considered final and there is no further recourse within the Independent Foreclosure Review process. The Independent Foreclosure Review will not have an impact on any other options homeowners may pursue related to the foreclosure process of their mortgage loan.”

It pointed out that more than 65,000 cases had been submitted to the review process so far, and that these reviews were turning up even more evidence that huge numbers of homeowners were wrongly foreclosed upon, without being informed that they could apply for loan modification. Furthermore, it states that the $8.5 billion is simply an insufficient amount to adequately compensate concerned homeowners, and slams the $5.2 billion earmarked for ‘other assistance’, saying “this will do little in assisting homeowners stay in their homes since it is not dedicated to principal reduction.”

Who Gets What?

At the end of the day, lenders are left with an even more pressing headache – which former homeowners are entitled to compensation and which aren’t? How do these people go about filing a claim? And what about those who are not ‘entitled’ to any of this compensation, because their homes were foreclosed upon outside of the Fed’s extremely narrow window?

There remain many other unanswered questions too, such as why the arbitrary $8.5 billion figure (which is surely inadequate), and why was the Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America not allowed to take part in the settlement making? Is there any avenue of appeal for homeowners that miss out?

Until these questions are answered adequately, this problem won’t be going away anytime soon…

Comments

I am extremely dissapointed with the IFR settlement as my home was not foreclosed upon because I remained current (using up savings and retirement funds) for two years while waiting for a HOPE loan modification that never was extended. I sent in documents to the IFR (evidence of intentional denials that ocurred when I applied for a HAFA). HAFA took 1.5 years and it was only when I uncovered inentional wrongdoing by staff at BAC; Tangible documents I possess in email form stated a denial reason and upon contact of the party named as responsible for “non-participation” allowing denial they then provided a statement in turn which damned the Servicer Bank of America. To their defense, the root cause was actually the investor Freddie Mac as according to the Servicer their underwriters were making the decisions, not Bank of America. In the end, not only did I lose my home – I wasn’t interest only so now I reminds me $30 000 was lost on the downpayment of that home. The IFR was a chance to have my evidence reviewed. I still posses a large case file but have been unable to have an attorney want to take my case against Bank of America.